4.12 Trainees' Perceptions of the Teaching Practice

Most trainees agreed that they felt better prepared for the
second teaching practice, in terms of their unit and lesson planning. They felt
that this time around, they knew what to expect, and they could reflect on
lessons learned on the first teaching practice round, and try to avoid previous
mistakes. A number of trainees commented, however, on the fact that they still
felt inadequately prepared to meet the requirements for teaching at all
different levels of the primary school. Some trainees felt that not
enough classes were devoted to methods appropriate to teaching at specific
levels. In such a situation, they fell back on their experiences at the primary
schools were they taught before coming to the Teachers' College, or conferred
with their cooperating teachers, with senior students at the Teachers' College,
or with friends who had recently completed the programme.

One comment made by different trainees was that they felt that
too much time was spent on coverage of unnecessary content at the Colleges, to
the neglect of areas that trainees felt would be more helpful to them in the
classroom. One noted, for example, that he felt a lot of time was spent on facts
like where Piaget lived, and his family life, that would have been better
employed in doing things like having lecturers demonstrate strategies, or on
aspects of theory that were more directly relevant to their classroom practice.

Trainees resorted to different strategies to deal with the
teaching practice. Some trainees described how their entire group prepared units
in common, and then adapted ideas to meet the needs of specific groups of
pupils. They also shared notes on comments made by their supervisors during the
first teaching practice round. Some went to senior students for advice, and for
units. Supervisors indicated that they were aware that some trainees were buying
units and using them, with greater or lesser degrees of understanding. Though
trainees generally didn't admit that this was so, a few did indeed admit that
there was fraudulence. Other trainees referred to resorting to
plans and notes lodged in the College library at
Corinth.

Even though they may have felt better prepared generally for the
unit and lesson planning aspects of the programme, however, all the trainees
agreed that the experience was extremely stressful; some trainees, in fact, said
that they found it even more stressful than the first teaching practice session.
Sources of stress identified by trainees included the fact that it was
physically tiring, especially for those trainees on whom the entire workload of
the class to which they were assigned fell, in situations where the class
teacher was absent. Trainees said they also found the session emotionally
stressful, because they were always aware that they were being graded. One
trainee said that whenever she saw her supervisor appear, she would think,
Oh God! Well he's here!

Trainees worried about their pupils' behaviour as well as their
own performance. For one thing, they generally tried to establish an agreement
with their pupils that they should be on their best behaviour when the
supervisor visited. Cooperating teachers often helped to reinforce this. In
addition, trainees felt keenly aware that however well they may have taught
generally, their performance on the lessons supervisors saw would largely
determine how they were assessed. Trainees were also concerned about the
unevenness of the experience for different individuals. They pointed out that
some supervisors saw trainees several times, while others saw them only once or
twice. They felt that this difference had implications for how much guidance
they received, and how fairly they were assessed.

Some trainees also coped by adapting the lessons their
supervisors would observe, so they would be in tune with what trainees perceived
supervisors wanted, even if they felt that their creativity was impaired when
they did this. One trainee noted that he would never try unusual things when his
supervisor was present. He would wait until the supervisor wasn't there, and try
them then, to see how well they worked. At such times he would ask his
cooperating teacher, who was very helpful, to give her comments. In cases where
trainees' cooperating teachers were absent, trainees would use their own
judgment in deciding how effective the new strategy was.

A significant aspect of trainees' development of strategies to
negotiate the challenges of the teaching practice entailed finding ways to
read what their supervisors wanted. They shared their experiences
with supervisors with each other, they shared documents that provided
indications of how supervisors assessed aspects of their performance, and they
devoted conscious effort during the teaching practice to interpreting what each
supervisor expected. As one trainee commented,  It's a straightforward
case of, I am here to get a Diploma. So I will decide what Mr. X (the
supervisor) is looking for, and I will give him that.

Trainees expressed concern about the fairness of the assessment
by supervisors. Some complained that unit plans that had been given a Grade A by
one supervisor might be assessed and given a Grade C by another. They indicated
that there was some discussion among trainees about how this demonstrated the
subjectivity involved in assessment practices, and that they wondered to what
extent this subjectivity persisted in other areas of performance on which they
were being assessed.

It is possible - though no trainee admitted to deliberate
absenteeism - that instances of absenteeism and unpunctuality discerned by
supervisors, cooperating teachers, and researchers alike also constituted
another attempt to cope with the stress of the situation, in a context where
trainees now knew, from their previous experience with teaching practice, how
much leeway they had when they were out in the
schools.